[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 85 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 IN SUPPORT OF H.R. 3905, FAIRNESS IN ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 25, 1998

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I have agreed to cosponsor H.R. 3905, 
the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998,'' legislation 
originally introduced by Chairman Hyde.
  I have done so because litigation over asbestos claims may have 
reached a crisis point. Hundreds of thousands of American workers who 
were exposed to asbestos, and who have suffered or are suffering from 
serious diseases as a result, have to wait for years to have their 
legitimate claims paid. In some cases, innocent victims are in danger 
of not receiving any compensation at all, because the liable 
corporations have protected themselves, or will protest themselves, 
under the bankruptcy laws.
  In 1994, negotiators between labor unions representing the bulk of 
the asbestos worker victims, on one side, and asbestos manufacturers, 
on the other side, resulted in a settlement agreement that was designed 
to alleviate the crisis. This agreement, know as the ``Georgine 
Settlement' after Robert Georgine, President of the Building and 
Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and the lead negotiator 
for labor in the settlement talks, would have established an 
administrative procedure for resolving asbestos claims. The U.S. 
District Court that oversees much of the federal class-action asbestos 
litigation approved the settlement as fair and reasonable. Georgine v. 
Amchem Products, Inc., 157 F.R.D. 246 (E.D. Pa 1994).
  Last year, however, in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 117 S. Ct. 
2231 (1997), the Supreme Court invalidated the Georgine Settlement, not 
on grounds of unfairness, but because the settlement agreement did not 
fit within the technical requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 
of Civil Procedure, which governs class-action lawsuits. The Court held 
that the federal courts lacked statutory authority to order so sweeping 
a settlement. Writing for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Ruth 
Bader Ginsburg stated: ``The argument is sensibly made that a 
nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the 
most secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of 
asbestos exposure. Congress, however, has not adopted such a solution.'
  Given the Supreme Court's decision, I believe that the relevant 
parties should again come to the table to work out a legislative 
solution if at all possible. That is why I have agreed to cosponsor 
H.R. 3905. I do want to note, however, that I have some specific 
concerns about the language of the bill as it is currently drafted. I 
am concerned the bill would eliminate the availability of punitive 
damages in those cases in which asbestos victims choose to pursue 
ordinary tort remedies instead of the administrative claims procedure. 
I have always believed, and I continue to believe strongly, that 
punitive damages must be available to sanction outrageous wrongdoing by 
corporate defendants. Otherwise, some unscrupulous businesspeople will 
simply choose to treat the damage caused by unsafe products as a cost 
of doing business. This in no way means that I believe those defendants 
in the Georgine Settlement engaged in such conduct, but I do believe 
that such judgments should be left to the judicial process.
  In addition, it is my position that any legislation we enact in the 
asbestos area should hew as closely as possible to the terms of the 
Georgine Settlement. To the extent H.R. 3905 may depart from those 
terms, I believe we should examine such departures very closely.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Hyde on a bipartisan basis on 
this important legislation.

                          ____________________